ethics-6
Explanation
This comic is a multi-panel exploration of the contradictions people face when trying to identify with a consistent ethical framework. The character begins by asking what their "point ethics system" is for semantic purposes.
In the first scenario, they note that when a scientific study confirms their pre-existing beliefs, they think the study "would probably produce the happiest outcome" -- so they conclude they must be a utilitarian (someone who judges actions by their outcomes/happiness produced).
In the second scenario, when a scientific study contradicts their pre-existing beliefs, they "keep my old position and say the study violates my iron moral law" -- making them a deontologist (someone who follows fixed moral rules regardless of consequences).
The third panel raises a further complication: it's impossible to know which ethical system is truly "best," which means some amount of "justice" is needed in evaluating moral frameworks -- suggesting virtue ethics (judging character and moral intuition).
The final panel delivers the punchline: "Good news! Among us are hypocrites and God wants us to be quiet." This punctures the entire philosophical exercise by suggesting that most people don't actually follow any consistent ethical system -- they just cherry-pick whichever framework supports what they already believe.
The comic satirizes how people use ethical philosophy as post-hoc rationalization rather than genuine moral reasoning. It is a characteristically SMBC deep cut at the intersection of philosophy, psychology, and human self-deception.